Thread
80,000 body bags
without compromising the source,
I have heard from someone related to someone onship in the persion gulf that they have in their holds 80,000 body bags.
now....this same person was in charge of the body bags for desert storm, and they only brought 10,000 (or some smaller number I don't recall exactly, but it was around there).
Why would we bring almost as many body bags as we have soldiers? Is the pentagon being overly pessimistic or realistic here? Do they already know something about this conflict that we do not?
hm....
(btw: to protect the innocent, the relationship I cited is fictious, but the data isn't)
I have heard from someone related to someone onship in the persion gulf that they have in their holds 80,000 body bags.
now....this same person was in charge of the body bags for desert storm, and they only brought 10,000 (or some smaller number I don't recall exactly, but it was around there).
Why would we bring almost as many body bags as we have soldiers? Is the pentagon being overly pessimistic or realistic here? Do they already know something about this conflict that we do not?
hm....
(btw: to protect the innocent, the relationship I cited is fictious, but the data isn't)
Quote:
|
Originally posted by Lerkfish: Why would we bring almost as many body bags as we have soldiers? Is the pentagon being overly pessimistic or realistic here? Do they already know something about this conflict that we do not? |
They're for the enemy.
The US/UK is trying to maintain some level of respect here, and these dead or soon-to-be-dead Iraqi soldiers and forced-by-gunpoint combatants are the fathers/brothers/sons of Iraqi citizens. The least the US/UK can do is allow for the proper burial (as per their families) of these Iraqis.
Yep.
Plus in the event that Saddam attacks his own people with a bio/chem weapon... We know from experience 10k+ can easily die.
Guess who would be doing the cleanup?
[Hint: Not France]
Plus in the event that Saddam attacks his own people with a bio/chem weapon... We know from experience 10k+ can easily die.
Guess who would be doing the cleanup?
[Hint: Not France]
I for one say let's drop the bodybags that contain dead enemy who died from a bioweopons attack all over Paris.
Quote:
|
Originally posted by beb: I for one say let's drop the bodybags that contain dead enemy who died from a bioweopons attack all over Paris. |
Yes, that's what he's saying.
I don't think it's what he meant, but that's language talent for ya.
-s*
I don't think it's what he meant, but that's language talent for ya.
-s*
I agree... The international community should let France cleanup...
Since france was so convinced there were no bio-weapons.
Since france was so convinced there were no bio-weapons.
Quote:
|
Originally posted by spacefreak: They're for the enemy. The US/UK is trying to maintain some level of respect here, and these dead or soon-to-be-dead Iraqi soldiers and forced-by-gunpoint combatants are the fathers/brothers/sons of Iraqi citizens. The least the US/UK can do is allow for the proper burial (as per their families) of these Iraqis. |
honest question here: are we in the habit of providing body bags for enemy soldiers on their own home soil? Body bags are for transporting.
Quote:
|
Originally posted by Lerkfish: honest question here: are we in the habit of providing body bags for enemy soldiers on their own home soil? Body bags are for transporting. |
Iraq's a pretty big place. I'm sure most Iraqi soldiers who get killed will not die in the graveyard of their family's choice, so they will need to be transported.
Quote:
|
Originally posted by spacefreak: Iraq's a pretty big place. I'm sure most Iraqi soldiers who get killed will not die in the graveyard of their family's choice, so they will need to be transported. |
that does not really answer my question...you're just speculating there.
my question, again, is are we (historically) in the habit of providing bodybags for the enemy fallen?
Does anyone have any actual data concerning this?
AFAIK we are not. Body bags are expensive and are only used to transport our own fallen soldiers home so they can be laid to rest there rather than buried far from their families.
The dead of the enemy are rarely given such consideration.
The dead of the enemy are rarely given such consideration.
Quote:
|
Originally posted by Mastrap: AFAIK we are not. Body bags are expensive and are only used to transport our own fallen soldiers home so they can be laid to rest there rather than buried far from their families. The dead of the enemy are rarely given such consideration. |
This is a different war for a different time. Hence, the power remaining on in Baghdad, bridges not being destroyed, etc.
Just because the bags may exist (not saying I don't trust your anonymous source , Lerk) doesn't mean that the military EXPECTS 80,000 casulties.
My wife bought a box of 500 trash bags from Costco. Doesn't mean we'll use them all tomorrow.
My wife bought a box of 500 trash bags from Costco. Doesn't mean we'll use them all tomorrow.
Quote:
|
Originally posted by Lerkfish: my question, again, is are we (historically) in the habit of providing bodybags for the enemy fallen? Does anyone have any actual data concerning this? |
Historically, no. Historically, we'd have also knocked out their power as soon as possible, destroyed their bridges as soon as possible, etc.
Because something hasn't been historically done in a past war doesn't mean that it can't be done in today's war.
Problem here is that we will be there for rebuilding. Cleaning up the mess the war will make is part of that... hence the need for body bags.
There hasn't really been a point in history where a nation invaded another nation, with the intent to help rebuild, and stick around to "aid".
Remember: Saddam uses WMD against his own (entirely possible), you can easily have 100k killed....
And guess who does the cleanup? And guess who needs to be respectful, as we are already not on great terms with the region.
There hasn't really been a point in history where a nation invaded another nation, with the intent to help rebuild, and stick around to "aid".
Remember: Saddam uses WMD against his own (entirely possible), you can easily have 100k killed....
And guess who does the cleanup? And guess who needs to be respectful, as we are already not on great terms with the region.
Quote:
|
Originally posted by macvillage.net: Remember: Saddam uses WMD against his own (entirely possible), you can easily have 100k killed.... |
More to the point, if those civilians were killed by chemical weapons, or worse, biological weapons, there would be a need to disposed of them in a way that wouldn't cause further contamination and kill more people. Body bags have impermiable seals.
Having said this though, I'm somewhat skeptical of the 80,000 figure (with respect to Lerk's source). But if it is true, the above is my guess why anyone would see a potential need for such a number.
Quote:
|
Originally posted by Lerkfish: that does not really answer my question...you're just speculating there. my question, again, is are we (historically) in the habit of providing bodybags for the enemy fallen? Does anyone have any actual data concerning this? |
No data and no links, but I vaguely recall reading an article where a marine was putting an Iraqi in a body bag. Then again, I saw footage of other marines burying an Iraqi according to Islamic custom (head pointed east maybe?) sans body bag. Sorry that I'm not more helpful.
Quote:
|
Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey: More to the point, if those civilians were killed by chemical weapons, or worse, biological weapons, there would be a need to disposed of them in a way that wouldn't cause further contamination and kill more people. Body bags have impermiable seals. Having said this though, I'm somewhat skeptical of the 80,000 figure (with respect to Lerk's source). But if it is true, the above is my guess why anyone would see a potential need for such a number. |
. It was made by Michael Moore BTW. That explains it all 
.
Quote:
|
Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey: More to the point, if those civilians were killed by chemical weapons, or worse, biological weapons, there would be a need to disposed of them in a way that wouldn't cause further contamination and kill more people. Body bags have impermiable seals. Having said this though, I'm somewhat skeptical of the 80,000 figure (with respect to Lerk's source). But if it is true, the above is my guess why anyone would see a potential need for such a number. |
*shrugs* I realize by not naming my source it calls its veracity into question....but I assure you, this is not only someone in a geographic and operational position to know, this is someone as pro-war as you are.
And, like I said, I do NOT know for sure what the final purpose would be, I just know the number.
Quote:
|
Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey: Having said this though, I'm somewhat skeptical of the 80,000 figure (with respect to Lerk's source). But if it is true, the above is my guess why anyone would see a potential need for such a number. |
I guess they don't go bad right? At least not quickly. Being short would be a huge problem.
Just imagine if Saddam got a bio/chem weapon on our guys, and we ran short! That would add insult to injury.
Can always sell them to law enforcement post-war. NY and LA can make good use of them.
If (Iraq has nuke = true)
body_count >= 80,000
body_count >= 80,000
Quote:
|
Originally posted by nickdman: If (Iraq has nuke = true) body_count >= 80,000 |
But then cleanup of human bodies wouldn't be an issue would it?